First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202318258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318258

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

14 February 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s dog.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy agreement that began on 28 February 2005. The property is a 1-bed first floor flat. At the resident’s request, the landlord has not recorded any vulnerabilities for him.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 June 2023 to report that a new neighbour had moved in with an “enormous pitbull”. On 7 June 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint as nobody had responded to his concerns. The landlord responded the same day to advise that it would visit the neighbour to ascertain the breed of the dog and take any necessary actions.
4. The landlord visited the neighbour on 7 June 2023 and advised that the dog was a 15 year old American Bulldog with mobility issues. It added that the dog “is not dangerous in any way” but it had advised the owner to keep it on a lead at all times in communal areas. The landlord visited the dog owner again to reiterate this requirement after the resident reported that it had been off the lead when taken to the toilet in the early hours of the morning.
5. The resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord about the dog and the potential for it to be aggressive. On 4 July 2023, he reported that the dog had acted aggressively towards two dogs on the other side of a fence in the communal garden. The landlord acknowledged this and said it would provide a stage 1 complaint response.
6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 July 2023. It advised that it did not consider the dog to be dangerous or a banned breed. It said it had visited his neighbour twice and told her that she would need to ensure the dog was on a lead in the communal areas. It also provided information about changes to assured tenancies that said landlords should not adopt a zero tolerance approach to residents having a dog in flats.
7. The resident replied the same day and requested escalation to stage 2 as he was unhappy with the response.
8. On 3 August 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response to the complaint. It said that there was no breach of tenancy as there were no proven examples of the dog causing a nuisance. It reiterated that the dog was not a banned breed and that there had been no previous reports to the landlord or the police about the dog during its lifetime. The landlord said it would not take any enforcement action against the owner.
9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought it to this Service for review on 21 August 2023. The landlord noted that the neighbour’s dog passed away in January 2024.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s assured tenancy agreement said that residents would not be permitted to keep a dog in a property with a shared entrance. However, the government made changes to assured tenancies in January 2021 which prevented landlords from issuing blanket bans on residents having pets.
11. When considering the resident’s complaint about the neighbour keeping a dog, the landlord needed to take those changes into account as the neighbour moved in after the tenancy changes. On this basis, it was reasonable that the landlord did not consider it a breach of tenancy that the neighbour had a dog.
12. When the resident reported his concerns about the dog, the landlord attended quickly to carry out a review of the situation. Having met with the dog owner, the landlord was advised that the breed (American Bulldog) did not belong to the banned dogs list. It also identified that the dog was 15 years old and had significant mobility issues. Given the resident’s concerns, the landlord took reasonable steps to identify the potential of the dog being dangerous.
13. Throughout the complaint period, the breed of the dog was untested so it was unclear whether it needed an exemption in line with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Without conclusive testing or a thorough review, neither the resident nor the landlord were able to make an informed statement on either. As neither party reported concerns about the dog to the police for the required testing to be carried out, neither was ever established.
14. As the landlord was not qualified to make the required determination about the dog breed, it was reasonable for it to carry out its own investigation. The landlord’s notes from the initial visit show that because on the temperament of the dog, its age and its mobility issues, it did not consider the dog dangerous. Based on the reasons it outlined, its position at the time was reasonable.
15. Given the resident’s concern about the dog being off lead in the communal areas, it was reasonable that the landlord spoke to the owner to avoid this happening. The resident was informed that the landlord had advised the dog owner about use of a lead on the same day as the visit took place. This was appropriate given the resident’s clear concerns about safety with the dog in and around the building.
16. It is evident that the landlord issued a further reminder to keep the dog on a lead after a report from the resident of an occasion when it was off lead despite the initial warning. The landlord’s actions demonstrate a continued consideration of the resident’s concerns.
17. The resident continued to raise similar concerns and presented his opinion that the dog should be considered dangerous and enforcement action taken by the landlord. However, the landlord said it was not in a position to take enforcement action against the owner as there was no clear breach of tenancy based on the reports it received. Given the information available to it at the time, the landlord’s decision not to take enforcement action was reasonable.  
18. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord provided a clear breakdown of its position, addressing the key elements of the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that it did not consider the dog dangerous as there was no evidence of it being “continuously out of the owner’s control”. The landlord added that aside from the resident’s complaints, there had been no other reports to it, or the police, during the 15 years that his neighbour had owned the dog.
19. Based on its own initial review and the lack of any other complaints about the dog or its behaviour for the 15 years prior, the landlord’s position was fair and reasonable. As it did not have any concerns about the dog or its behaviour, it was understandable that the landlord did not report it to the police or request any further action.
20. It is accepted that such a large dog could cause a significant concern to somebody with a fear of dogs. However, outside of a report of the neighbour’s dog barking at another dog through a fence, there were no reports of the dog being “out of control” or causing a nuisance to the other residents in the building.
21. On this basis, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It did not consider there to be any reason to report the dog as potentially dangerous or take any enforcement action given the evidence available.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a neighbour’s dog.